1. Microsoft Academic is on the verge of becoming a bibliometric superpower
In 2016, the new Microsoft Academic service was launched. In their post in The Impact Blog, Sven E. Hug and Martin P. Brändle look at how it compares with more established competitors such as Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. While there are reservations about the availability of instructions for novice users, Microsoft Academic has impressive semantic search functionality, broad coverage, structured and rich metadata, and solid citation analysis features.
The blog post says (quote): First trials show that the search interface of Microsoft Academic returns relatively few but very accurate results. This is due to its semantic search engine, which leverages entities associated with a paper (e.g. fields of study, journal, author, affiliation). In contrast, most other scholarly databases rely on search terms, which are also employed by Microsoft Academic but only if semantic search fails. Much like library databases, Microsoft Academic offers a range of filtering and sorting options to refine search results. This is very convenient and a plus compared to Google Scholar, which provides only very limited refinement options………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Can you Trust It? Using Open Access Materials in the Corporate World
Do you understand the economic underpinnings of each Open Access model? There are various flavours, meanings and models of Open Access, but once you have the basic differences down, it is worth exploring the economic underpinnings of each model, notes Roy Kaufman, in his post in the CCC Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Without an independent business model for green road OA, economic complications arise. The costs of green road publication are essentially paid for by the publishers and underwritten by the subscribers. If anything, the business model is self-destructive, as its ultimate goal is to replace the subscriptions that sustain it. (Some will argue that this is not the “goal” of green OA, but if the objective is not to avoid fees, what is the point?) This is not to say that all green road content is of poor quality; rather that without a publisher’s quality control, you simply do not always know if what you are reading is the version of record, or that it has been properly peer reviewed, retracted, modified, or corrected. Some repositories are simply more trustworthy than others, and few have the same processes as publishers………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. How Academia Can Use the Power of Digital Technology for Cross-border Collaboration
Science can never be restricted by lines on a map. Collaborative research is the key to problem-solving and innovation and this is exemplified by some of the collaborations witnessed so far. In her guest post in the Digital Science Blog, Ramya Sriram discusses the need to encourage cross-border collaborations.
The blog post says (quote): Academia-industry partnerships are usually a win-win situation. The institution receives funding and recognition; the company gets innovative products backed by scientific research. These partnerships allow companies to access to the expertise of highly qualified individuals. When it comes to collaboration within academia, individual researchers also no longer want to work in isolation. As science becomes increasingly interdisciplinary, there are multiple overlaps in the skills and knowledge required for different fields of studies. Countries all over the world are joining hands to help fuel research and innovation, in a political climate that is becoming alarmingly anti-science. Under Horizon 2020, the EU’s research and innovation programme, academia in the EU and the USA will be able to work together closely………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Four Library User Challenges to Address
For the library user, conducting research is often similar to navigating a challenge course. From knowing where to begin once on the library website, to navigating search results, and then finding the right content, it is these library user challenges which can impede successful research outcomes and potentially undermine your library’s mission. A post in the EBSCOpost Blog discusses how the library could remove those obstacles and create an optimal research journey.
The blog post says (quote): For the library user, logging in to access library resources and services is of critical importance, but having to re-authenticate again and again is a small task that grows into a tiresome library user challenge. The library users’ workflows are changing; no longer are they reliably connected to the institution’s network when accessing resources. Overcome this library user challenge by implementing a single sign-on solution that allows the library user to move from resource to resource without re-entering their credentials. Library users expect and want to be led to the most relevant content in the most expedient way with minimal effort. Leading them down the path to trustworthy research depends on both the content sources and the technologies that provide a smooth and unbiased entry-point to the library’s collections - this is where a premium discovery service comes into play……………… (unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
5. Platform Diving - Top Journals, UX, and the Lure of Harmonization
Platforms are only the start of design, feature sets, system integrations, and various decisions publishers and technologists make. Even on a platform, journal instances can diverge. A review of top journals in 18 fields show they are on a variety of platforms, suggesting cognitive burden for users which may be driving them to aggregated options with unified user experiences, discusses Kent Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Researchers sometimes try to eliminate these divergent interfaces themselves, with private PDF archives, reference manager software, and the like. Services like Mendeley once provided a virtual PDF locker for users, and now ResearchGate and Academia.edu are striving to provide a similar solution. The lure of UX consolidation remains strong enough to be interesting. All this diversity in approach may be driving users toward consolidated experiences. While Sci-Hub is piracy on steroids, a single search and retrieval engine meets some core user needs. However, users are strange creatures, and aggregators of all sorts usually come up short of market domination, even if their services are perceived as free. At many institutions, librarians find themselves purchasing EBSCO and ProQuest and Ovid and the source journal because users develop preferences they won’t surrender, and the traffic still justifies the expense………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
6. Avoiding Predators in Publishing
As open access publishing has expanded, some people have realised that they can profit from scholarly communication while shirking on quality. Recent news stories, stings, and probes have revealed practices ranging from mild deception to serious fraud. As the number of publishers that choose profit over ethics grows, find out how to avoid their scams and support organisations promoting best practices in scholarly communication, notes Brooks Hanson and Jenny Lunn, in their post in the Eos Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Some of the publishers that engage in fraudulent activities participate less or not at all in supporting this larger infrastructure around research integrity. They also don’t promote best practices (although some will say they do). Of broader concern, the growth of predatory publishers erodes the integrity of the whole of publishing, and open access journals in particular. These unethical actors and their growth normalize irresponsible and illegal behavior surrounding scholarly communication. Recent surveys support this concern………………(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply